The Times are a Changin'

[michaeldimmickjr]

The Times they are a changin’ - A Russian Orthodox Church Website

 

[ArmyMatt]

amen

 

[GregConstantine]

what a fantastic article! Funny how that Bob Dylan song has been coming up a lot recently.

 

[Macarius]

I agree with some of the thrust of the article (esp. the basic and main point that "self-expression" isn't an Orthodox virtue and has become a supreme value of mainstream American culture, even trumping the value of life itself).

I don't, though, agree with the Dreher quote (surprise!) since he (like many) cries foul over how mainstream culture views "traditional sexual ethics." This is kind of true, but kind of not, on two fronts.

1) He states that traditional sexual ethics are viewed as "outmoded at best, hateful at worst." The traditional sexual ethics themselves are not, though, generally viewed as hateful. What is viewed as hateful is using those ethics as a basis for social, political, or economic action against those of an opposing viewpoint - much in the way that conservatives typically don't view gay persons themselves as "hateful" but feel that the political, social, or economic action taken by some LGBT-rights activists against conservatives crosses the line into hateful behavior. Dreher's problem is that he views his vision of conservative sexual ethics as synonymous with Christianity (something he argues in an article he wrote elsewhere) AND as synonymous with the political-economic program of conservative American politics. Thus, for him, "traditional sexual ethics" are indeed viewed as outmoded or hateful by his political opponents; but the problem is in his conflation of his view with social, economic, and political action. Most liberals (that I know) really don't care if people desire to live a life centered around traditional sexual ethics - in fact, most liberals that I know live a life broadly in conformity with what most conservatives would call traditional sexual ethics (that is, they live in or attempt to live in life-long, monogamous, heterosexual marriages in which they have and raise their own biological children naturally conceived).

2) No one that I'm aware of actually defends real traditional sexual ethics. The times are indeed changing, but they have also already changed, and we (without knowing it) changed right along with them. The presuppositions lying deeply behind the push for what Dreher would call liberal sexuality are the same as the presuppositions lying deeply behind what he would call traditional sexual ethics. I know of very, very few Orthodox Christians willing to defend REAL traditional sexual ethics (or REAL traditional Orthodox political theory, for that matter) on the political or economic level. There are a few more that I know who defend real traditional sexual ethics on a personal level (that is, they model it in their own life) and they are, indeed, viewed as a bit odd by most people. At most they use politics to defend the existence of their way of life, but like most minority groups they don't tend to even dream of forcing their way of life into codified law binding on all people.

 

[GregConstantine]

I totally agree with you Macarius about the conflation of Christianity with conservative morality and ethics. I've said that many times on this forum (another example of this is the strange connection some made in regards to evolution with homosexuality). I've said it many times but alas. Its a problem I think our clergy needs to address, especially with conservatives converting to Orthodoxy.

 

[rusmeister]

If everyone here believes that the true divisions are between "conservatives" and "liberals", then there's not much I can say. What can you say to debunk a popular superstition to people who believe in it (and don't want to reconsider)?

I've been heavily demotivated to want to post here.
But there IS still something to say. Maybe not everyone is firmly entrenched in the belief in that "liberal-conservative" dichotomy that the media is always harping on, so that we should believe it as firmly as we do the Symbol of Faith.

I agree with Fr John Moses and Mr Dreher.
Macarius, you say that Dreher has a "problem" in viewing the sexual ethics - excuse me, I mean morals - that Christians have agreed on for 2,000 years as synonymous with the Christian view. But it is. In Christendom, marriage has ALWAYS been between only one man and one woman, and NEVER anything else - and "anything else" wasn't tolerated. That is historical fact which you imply is not the case. That you speak about "conservatives" and "liberals" (a modern dichotomy which didn't exist at all in any form four hundred-odd years ago and which achieved its current understanding - as faithful and permanent as water in a current - less than a hundred years ago. So imposing those ideas on human history is cultural anachronism. No Church father spoke for or against "liberals" or "conservatives" and with good reason - there IS no such thing. There ARE things - some extremely mutable - which temporarily describe views held by people self-identifying as such. But they are not in their nature permanent philosophical positions.

What I think you miss is that it doesn't matter what "most liberals" (that you know) think or don't think, feel or don't feel. What matters much more is the real meaning of their theories, whether they intend them and/or put them into practice themselves or not.

Maybe you sneer at anything by Chesterton; certainly you have given an impression of being strongly prejudiced against him. But I offer this anyway, because he spoke about nearly everything under the sun; he spoke about this, too:

I will confess that I attach much more importance to men's theoretical arguments than to their practical proposals. I attach more importance to what is said than to what is done; what is said generally lasts much longer and has much more influence. I can imagine no change worse for public life than that which some prigs advocate, that debate should be curtailed. A man's arguments show what he is really up to. Until you have heard the defence of a proposal, you do not really know even the proposal. Thus, for instance, if a man says to me, "Taste this temperance drink," I have merely doubt, slightly tinged with distaste. But if he says, "Taste it, because your wife would make a charming widow," then I decide. I would be openly moved in my choice of an institution, not by its immediate proposals for practice, but very much by its incidental, even its accidental, allusion to ideals. I judge many things by their parentheses.

And it is the parentheses that I object to in your ideas. I object even to "(that I know)", for here it is what you don't know and haven't seen or thought of that can really grow as a fruit from the seeds you propose to plant. All of human literature of the past 1,500+ years attests to the universal acceptance of the ideas of sex and marriage that you call "conservative" and assume to be modern. It's NOT "modern" to say there is only one kind of marriage and that society may admit no other kind, that marriage ought to be for life and divorce nearly unheard-of, and so on. It's NOT "conservative" - or even "liberal". It's the ONLY attitude in the history of Christendom until the late 20th century. You have to say that absolutely everybody (most importantly, the entire Church in history) was wrong in order to suggest anything else.

What is viewed as hateful is using those ethics as a basis for social, political, or economic action against those of an opposing viewpoint

Everything I read says that you, Mac, also view it as hateful. You are pretty clearly defending that view, and opposing the view of one definite understanding of sexuality, and so setting yourself up against all the literature and history of Christendom, East and West.

But this idea that we ought not to use morality as a basis for opposing viewpoints is unsound on every level. It is essential to hate an opposing, mutually exclusive viewpoint. If one view says human life is sacred and the other says it is not, then it is right and necessary to hate the lie, the wrong view (even though the lie be sincerely believed). For whether the defender of that view realizes it or not, the view that life is not sacred can be used to support all manner of evil - abortion, euthanasia, suicide, etc, on the very ground that life is not sacred, even if the speaker of the lie should have no such intent.
The Orthodox Churches in America disagree with you when they participate in the march for life and against abortion. The idea you are defending, whether it is yours or not, justifies remaining silent in the face of evil, even though you do not intend it to. Enemies of the Faith and Truth can take your very ideas and use them in ways you never wanted - but you justify them in your abstract theories.

As with the sacredness of life, so it is with sexuality. You cannot have practical policy in the public square based on opposing and mutually exclusive views. One overall philosophy, right or wrong, must prevail, and drive the views that oppose it underground, certainly in practice if not in theory. That is why Christians who accept the traditional and ancient Christian view on sexuality are now being persecuted.

Lastly, you may not "be aware of anyone who actually defends real traditional sexual ethics" (You mean "morals"). But maybe others ARE aware of such people. I certainly am. I know of people who insist that divorce ought to not be easy, or "no-fault", that contraception, generally speaking, is inconsistent with the Christian philosophy of sex as expressed in Holy Tradition, etc etc. But as far as I can tell, you have an idea of what "REAL" sexual morality that seems wholly at variance with everything taught and accepted in the Church in history.

One of the issues hardly discussed and assumed too much is whether Christians ought to take any political action whatsoever; whether, IF they have genuine power or authority as a ruler (if only as a senator or mayor or Supreme Court justice), they should use it to encourage moral behavior and discourage immoral behavior. My sense is that you think that in some things, like sexual morality, that they shouldn't, which implies that you think public sexual morality unimportant.

At most they use politics to defend the existence of their way of life, but like most minority groups they don't tend to even dream of forcing their way of life into codified law binding on all people.

And here we come to the fundamental assumption you seem to hold - that moral views have no effect on one's "way of life". Really, all law is the forcing of a particular way of life into codified law binding on all people. Or haven't you heard about Obama's imposition of the modern lack of morality on Christian institutions?
And minority groups absolutely DO dream of becoming a majority and establishing in law what THEY see as true - and so do you. You want your own ideas to become a majority view and to be accepted by all, even here at TAW. You can't speak of "forcing views" onto people as a bad thing without implying that the imposition of law itself is a bad thing. And it is hypocritical (insufficiently self-critical) to imply that you don't think anyone ought to force anything on anyone, when you do in fact think that some things need to be forced on everyone. You are trying to make an exception for sexual morality (even to the point of calling it "ethics", instead of "morality"), as if the morality of (for example) killing people affects us as a society, but the morality of sexual behavior and attitudes didn't.

If you DON'T support those ideas, then please don't give the impression of doing so, even as "disinterested intellectual inquiry". If you DO support them, man up and admit it. If you think same-sex relations are fine, say so. All of your ideas have practical effects, and right now it looks like you want to promote the theory and deny any effects.

...the fundamental truth of the modern world. And that is this: there are no Fascists; there are no Socialists; there are no Liberals; there are no Parliamentarians. There is the one supremely inspiring and irritating institution in the world; and there are its enemies. Its enemies are ready to be for violence or against violence, for liberty or against liberty, for representation or against representation; and even for peace or against peace.

All of this is NOT to make an enemy out of you; it is a hope that through argument, we might come to agreement - to find ourselves on the same side. I think there's a real possibility of finding ourselves on opposite sides, though, and think that ought to be dealt with, even though I am deathly tired of internet argument. It makes me feel ill to have to argue what OUGHT to be common sense, and is neither "liberal" nor "conservative".

 

[GregConstantine]

Rusmeister, watch your words. You said "if everyone here". Really? everyone?

Please read again what Macarius and I are saying, we're not even saying half of what you think we are saying.

It might be wise to take a break and stop posting, nothing wrong with that.

 

[Macarius]

Rusmeister, watch your words. You said "if everyone here". Really? everyone?

Please read again what Macarius and I are saying, we're not even saying half of what you think we are saying.

Yeeeahhh.... Rus I really don't think you understood me. I was (and have generally been) actually saying that the current conservative position is actually pretty liberal relative to world history - that we, as the church, have already liberalized in our presuppositions.

I use liberal and conservative (in the above paragraph) to refer to attitudes towards change. Conservatives generally affirm the status quo; liberals generally question it. This does not map perfectly (or at all) with the liberal and conservative sub-cultures of American or Western European politics.

 

[rusmeister]

Rusmeister, watch your words. You said "if everyone here". Really? everyone?

Please read again what Macarius and I are saying, we're not even saying half of what you think we are saying.

It might be wise to take a break and stop posting, nothing wrong with that.

Greg, I DO watch my words. That's why I stopped posting; that's why I probably am dropping out of here. I REALIZE that what (primarily Mac) has said does NOT have ill intent; I say that the effect is ill REGARDLESS of intent. But I AM aware that there are exceptions to rules; I mean "everyone" loosely - as in "the overwhelming majority of those that comment".
Having watched every single word, and run a "charity check" - to insure there is nothing of offense or pride; to try to speak the truth in love.

It wouldn't be "a break" for me - it would be "to leave or not to leave". But it's not about me. It's about what ideas mean. ESPECIALLY when people don't intend them. I see something. You don't. You think it's not there because you don't see it. I say it is.

You'll note that my post was aimed above all at what Macarius has said. If you read it as intended specifically for you, you're mistaken. It's only "if the shoe fits". If it doesn't, it's not for you.

 

[rusmeister]

Yeeeahhh.... Rus I really don't think you understood me. I was (and have generally been) actually saying that the current conservative position is actually pretty liberal relative to world history - that we, as the church, have already liberalized in our presuppositions.

I use liberal and conservative (in the above paragraph) to refer to attitudes towards change. Conservatives generally affirm the status quo; liberals generally question it. This does not map perfectly (or at all) with the liberal and conservative sub-cultures of American or Western European politics.

But the core of Tradition HAS to be consistent over time, Mac. If it isn't, it can't be Tradition. I don't give a hoot about "the status quo" - which is generally used to speak of affirming political power of those with said power. But when you apply it to sexual relations - even SUGGEST that the relations of men and women are "status quo" in that sense - then you have - anyone has - gone off the rails.

I think I DO understand you. But as long as you speak in your own language, I can't even talk to you, because all of the assumptions are framed wrongly. If the very ideas of "liberal" and "conservative" are challenged, you can't keep using them to define common terms with anyone who challenges them. I deny the truth of those terms. I think people take a set of ideas - which varies over time - and apply them to temporal understandings that actually avoid definition of the real divide. In politics and economics, that means Hudge and Gudge, who are ultimately driven by the spirit of the age, the Prince of this world. They do NOT represent Jones. (There. A little of my own language regarding what the real divisions are. Google "Hudge and Gudge".) It's useless talking about "liberals" and "conservatives" to someone who knows what Hudge and Gudge are.

 

[GregConstantine]

Rus, you said "everyone here", the last time I checked, everyone means, everyone, unless you think Macarius is everyone or representative of everyone. So, forgive me if I took your use of the word "everyone" to mean just that, everyone.